This week's fracas over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (see below) promises to be at least a short-term campaign issue.

Within minutes of today's action on the Senate floor, the Republican National Committee criticized Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (both making cameo appearences in the chamber) for voting against cutting off debate on the bill and thus delaying its passage.

"If Sens. Obama and Clinton were serious about national security they would realize that while our ability to monitor terrorist communication expires in a matter of days, the terrorist threat against our families will not,” said Mike Duncan, the RNC chairman.

Expect President Bush to mention the FISA bill tonight in the State of the Union address, putting more pressure on congressional Democrats to get something done by the end of the week. Leaders in both houses want more time to consider potential amendments that they say would protect Americans' privacy and are seeking an extention to finish the bill.

Meanwhile, Sens. Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold, two members of the Judiciary Committee who are trying to get some of those amendments approved, blasted Republican senators' attempts to force the bill to a vote. “The Senate today rejected the tactics of obstructionism and delay employed by the Republican minority and the White House," Leahy said. "In refusing to allow the entire Senate the opportunity to openly and fairly debate the important issue of amending our surveillance laws, Republicans have brought to a screeching halt the Senate’s extensive efforts over the last several months to protect this country and the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans."

The drama continues tomorrow when the Senate will take up the bill anew.

Comments

More fear-mongering and lies from the RNC. This doesn't prevent monitoring of terrorist, it simply requires a warrant, and in time sensitive cases, not even that. What happened to the Republican Party that respected the privacy of the individual?

How does giving telcoms, Bush, and Cheney immunity from past illegal activity make America more safe? It appeares that Bush will not sign any FISA bill--protecting America--if it does not contain immunity to cover his own personal backside. That goes against the presidential oath that W.Bush took. It also shows that Bush puts his own safety above the safety of America. For those reasons congress should definitely not give any immunity to telcoms, or anyone.

The principles involved (checks and balances, the right to privacy, a government accountable to The People) are heady and the debate about whether we will honor and protect them continues Monday on the Senate floor. Will Congress yield once again, tossing aside the very things that make America great? Will it again appease an Administration which shamelessly uses fear, intimidation, and false patriotism to steamroll those who patriotically defend the core priciples and rights we as a Nation hold inalienable and sacred? Let us hope this is not the case. Will a Wyden amendment to guarantee the portability of a U.S. Citizen’s right to privacy make its way into the final legislation? Let us solemnly pray that this and other important safeguards are incorporated into the final bill. The most important of which would be a strong and explicit prohibition of this Administration's dangerous assertion that the President has the unilateral ability to assume the powers of all three branches of government, declaring any Act of Congress he wishes unconstitutional and operating contemptuously outside any U.S. law.

Sir, this is a flat out lie -- if you can merely read the United States Code, you would know this to be true. Mr. Oliphant, you should not let these kind of lies go published without calling them what they are. FISA is the law of the land; it has no sunset provision, no matter what lies Mr. Duncan wishes to spew. Let's be clear about this -- the so-called Protect America Act is a technical fix for one portion of FISA that became necessary when the FISC ruled certain collections by the NSA illegal (likely because they were, due to egregious abuse of the system). Other portions of the PAA are almost certainly unconstitutional if the 4th Amendment is still in effect. The NSA and FBI may still obtain any communication -- ANY COMMUNICATION -- with any alleged terrorist by submitting a warrant to the secret court.

What Bush et al want to do is label every citizen a terrorist, and use that designation to institute a massive dragnet of the entire US populace -- in fact, they are probably already doing so.

It's probably not a good idea to let propaganda straight from the funky basement of the RNC go into print without massive amounts of context. For example, you might point out that FISA is perfectly adequate if you don't feel the need to accumulate unbridled power to spy on whomever you want, whenever you want, with no check or balance for miles around. Something like that would make the value of the RNC's "gems of wisdom" immediately apparent. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to your improved performance in the future.

Why not go beyond he-said-she-said coverage and fact-check what you're being told? "Our ability to monitor terrorist communication" does not expire in days. A few worrisome extensions to FISA expire, but FISA itself continues to be the law of the land and to allow the US to monitor terrorist communications.

I will echo others here and say that you should really issue a correction on this post. Your duty as a reporter goes beyond printing what interested parties say.

There is no way to construe Duncan's statement that "our ability to monitor terrorist communication expires in a matter of days" as true. the FISA bill has been on the books for decades, and will continue to be. The law will continue to give the government the power to get warrants retroactively, adding no additional time to the process. The parts that expire are simply not relevant to his statement.

Mr Oliphant-
Would you please do an article on the amount of personal energy Cheney is putting in--in efforts to get the immunity. Also, I have read that much information was illegally gathered well before 9/11. And, would you please report to The Swamp the FISA voting record/roster of senators--so that we may see who values the constitution, AND who values citizens' right to due process. Thanks.
A good thing that could happen--and still keep America safe--would be for nothing to be done, or voted on by Feb 1. Things would roll back to allow judges to be in the mix once again. I have read that FISA judges can be called, or work any time--24/7 in order to get a warrant. Warrants help assure the truth in what is said, or understood about what the gov't is looking for. I trust most judges more than I trust an insulated Bush/Cheney admin. that arrogantly acts alone. Too scary for this citizen.

Mr. Oliphant:
You write: ""If Sens. Obama and Clinton were serious about national security they would realize that while our ability to monitor terrorist communication expires in a matter of days, the terrorist threat against our families will not,” said Mike Duncan, the RNC chairman."

This is not true: FISA will continue if the PAA expires. FISA allows the US to monitor communications, and has VERY lax standards for warrants.

If I know that, how come a big-shot journalist like you doesn't? Just askin'...

Okay, this has to stop right now. FISA does NOT expire! They can still get a warrant from the FISA court, as always. It is the Protect America Act--which broadly EXPANDS the president's (or Cheney's)power to spy on us--that is set to expire.
Make a correction, sir.

I have no problem with the printing the quote from Mr. Duncan. But the roll of a good journalist is to checkout the veracity of such statements for readers. In this case Mr. Oliphant you clearly should have noted that the statement is misleading, that the ability to wiretap without a warrant will expire. You should also have noted that the Republicans rejected a 30 day extension of the bill, and that they are as much to blame in letting the warrantless wiretapping to expire.

This is the job of the journalist, otherwise you might as well just get rid of the journalists and just let various organizations publish their press releases.

How can you print such a lie? Our ability to monitor terrorists does not expire. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the law, and a smear. Where is the critique and fact-checking?? Where is the accurate reporting of facts, instead of more Republican talking points we've come to expect from the Tribune?? This is not journalism and Oliphant is not a journalist, he is a stenographer.

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)